If your god exists in your head, Luk, why do you want others to go to your church? Why do you want others to have the same beliefs as you have? Why would that matter?

The way I explain it is like when you discover some new kind of food. Why do you want others to taste it? Why do you want other to taste that same one you had? Why does it matter? The answer is just because. We want other to be able to feel the same way we did when we felt it. Some people might like the new food and they will thank you for that. Some people will taste it and find it just Ok and move on with their lives. Some will hate it and will blame you for that too. It is because of the ones who loved it too that you will continue inviting people to taste it.I hope this answers the other question you asked.

I aksed the question "Would it be ok if someone told you that it is not love that people experience that it can be attributed to physiological/neurological processes or to social interactions? Hence love does not exist?" when you did not felt love or you imagine you did not felt love yet.

It isn't either/or; it's both. Love is a combination of thoughts, emotions, body sensations and/or actions that transcends nations and religions. It is real and it is grounded in the physical world, but it is a phenomenon rather than an entity.

Quote

"I'm clearly experiencing something that I call love" is not in the equation yet.

It most certainly is "in the equation." If we're discussing love, I will speak about it as -I- see fit, using as many relevant examples as -I- feel to be necessary to get -My- point across.

Quote

You are someone who did not feel God. I am someone who did feel Him. I am wondering if because we don't feel something it makes it nonexistent, even if most of the others felt it.

Your god is nonexistent to Me, and unless your god decides to show up of its own volition and talk to Me in person, that will not change.

I don't think anyone here is denying that religious people have religious experiences. When we speak of proving the existence of a god, we're not asking you to prove that you feel the presence of a god; we want external, objective evidence of a god that doesn't depend upon subjective experiences. If all you've got is testimonials based on the subjective experiences of believers, it's not going to qualify as evidence that will satisfy us.

^^^Exactly. Our subjective experiences as atheists say that there do not seem to be any gods. We can't feel, see or hear any gods. We don't look at the world with "god glasses"; we don't see god anywhere. Religious people's subjective experiences say that there seems to be a god or gods. They look at the world with "god glasses" and see god(s) everywhere.

Subjective experiences are like tastes in food or clothing. Does everyone like the taste of black coffee or pork intestines or okra? Does everyone think Lady Gaga has good fashion sense? It would be silly to argue or fight with someone who disagrees with you about how good okra tastes or whether Lady Gaga's clothes are ugly. Those issues are subjective.

However, with belief in god(s) we do have objective measures. Those of us who say there does not seem to be any sign of god(s) can point to scientific evidence that supports what we say. Science can detect no sign of any gods either. All the scientific evidence points to no sign of any gods. We can also say that if science does detect signs of any gods, we will accept that there are such beings. It will be objective evidence, demonstrable to anyone.

Those people who say there is a god or gods do not have any objective evidence, demonstrable to anyone. It is all still subjective. They feel god's presence. They attribute this or that ordinary or unusual event in the world to one god or another. But they cannot agree about what a god looks like, acts like, what it can or cannot do. Or even why they exist and how many there are. That's why there have been so many religions and so many gods. God belief is totally a matter of personal opinion.

Like the taste of okra or the fashion value of a plastic bubble dress.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

I am not going to allow Luk to play these games and make this false comparison between what we call "love" and what he is trying to refer to as "God". Setting aside the fact that he ignored my post at #1413, the fact is that he has not presented a logically coherent definition of that term (which literally means that he is not referring to anything; i.e. he is referring to no-thing) and that is incoherent and meaningless.

Secondly, the context of this thread has to do with an alleged "entity" or "thing" that people call "God". This is a far cry from what people call "love" b/c love is not a proposed entity or "thing". So the analogy fails b/c he is context dropping. To this point, Luk has consistently equivocated on the term "exist" - implying that love "exists" as a "thing" or entity, when there is no reason for thinking that is true.

Lastly, just because a person has a feeling does not give them rational grounds for calling that feeling "God" (especially since no coherent definition has been given to describe what the person is attempting to refer to). The word "feeling" is a descriptive word. It need not denote any "thing" that "exists" - b/c when we talk about existence in this context we are discussing "things". What are the "things" that are associated with love? They are chemicals, neurons, and electrical impulses. Are theists willing to admit that "God" is nothing more than the firing of neurons? If not, then people like Luk have lost this part of the debate due to their false analogy fallacy. If so, then they have lost this debate as well due to an equivocation fallacy. We already have a sufficient word to describe biological processes and there is no need for the use of a word with so much historical baggage.

At the end of the day, this part of the discussion comes down to whether or not Luk (or other theists) can coherently and meaningfully define what "IT" is that they are trying to refer to when they use the word "God". If they cannot do it then they have no justification for drawing a parody to things like love or truth.

If love and truth are not living beings, but if they exist, then god exists, then god is not a living being either.

If god is a being, than god is not on the same plane of existence as love and truth. Love and truth are abstract concepts that don't exist apart from living beings who define and experience those concepts.

So is god an abstract concept like love and truth? If so, then where there are no living beings, there will be no god.

Lukvance are love and truth living beings or not? Is god a living being or not?

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

^Thanks for asking this. Luk agreed with me that God is an abstract idea that is stimulated in our brain by chemical reactions, but he hasn't explained how he makes the leap from God is an abstract idea to God has a direct influence on our world with miracles, which he has claimed in other threads.

Do you have proof of the existence of Love?Does this kind of proof can be used to prove the existence of God?If not, I am ready to listen to you. If so then I proved to you that God exist as much as Love.If you believe that Love is not real, then I can agree with you that God is not real.If you believe that Love is real then I must ask you what makes you think that Love is real and God is not.I believe that God is (at least) as real as Love.Prove me wrong or admit the existence of God. (or the non existence of Love)

Nothing in here says that Love and God are the same. If there is, I apologize, it wasn't my intention.Therefore, there is nothing to explain. Is there?

If love and truth are not living beings, but if they exist, then god exists, then god is not a living being either. If god is a being, than god is not on the same plane of existence as love and truth. Love and truth are abstract concepts that don't exist apart from living beings who define and experience those concepts. So is god an abstract concept like love and truth? If so, then where there are no living beings, there will be no god. Lukvance are love and truth living beings or not? Is god a living being or not?

Love and truth are not living beings.Let me ask you some questions about humans.Are they real?Are humans on the same plane of existence as love and truth? Can humans experience things that are not real? Is love and truth part of these things? And God?Do you have objective measures of their existence, demonstrable to anyone?Aren't the belief in humans totally a matter of personal opinion?Is there a difference between the existence of humans and the existence of love? Is there one that exist more than the other?Can things exist more that other things?

^Thanks for asking this. Luk agreed with me that God is an abstract idea that is stimulated in our brain by chemical reactions, but he hasn't explained how he makes the leap from God is an abstract idea to God has a direct influence on our world with miracles, which he has claimed in other threads.

That is not true. I proved here that God exist (at least as an abstract idea) And in the other thread I explained/proved why he existed as more than that.

^Thanks for asking this. Luk agreed with me that God is an abstract idea that is stimulated in our brain by chemical reactions, but he hasn't explained how he makes the leap from God is an abstract idea to God has a direct influence on our world with miracles, which he has claimed in other threads.

That is not true. I proved here that God exist (at least as an abstract idea) And in the other thread I explained/proved why he existed as more than that.

If love and truth are not living beings, but if they exist, then god exists, then god is not a living being either. If god is a being, than god is not on the same plane of existence as love and truth. Love and truth are abstract concepts that don't exist apart from living beings who define and experience those concepts. So is god an abstract concept like love and truth? If so, then where there are no living beings, there will be no god. Lukvance are love and truth living beings or not? Is god a living being or not?

Love and truth are not living beings.Let me ask you some questions about humans.Are they real?Are humans on the same plane of existence as love and truth? Can humans experience things that are not real? Is love and truth part of these things? And God?Do you have objective measures of their existence, demonstrable to anyone?Aren't the belief in humans totally a matter of personal opinion?Is there a difference between the existence of humans and the existence of love? Is there one that exist more than the other?Can things exist more that other things?

Thanks for stating clearly that love and truth are not living beings.

Yes, human beings are real. That is what a being is, something that is alive and real.

Yes, humans can experience things that are not real. We humans are very good at imagining things that are not real, and acting as though they are real. Children have imaginary friends who are not real. People have scary nightmares that make us shake and sweat and scream, even though they are not real. Illness and drugs can cause hallucinations that seem very real, but are not. Schizophrenics hear voices that are not real, and the voices go away when they take the right medications.

Every culture had imaginary beings like witches or demons that caused smallpox or caused crops to fail-- witches and demons are not real. People took precautions against them as if they were real beings, but it did no good. Smallpox still sickened everyone and the crops still died in the ground causing starvation. Now we know that germs and viruses cause sickness and crop failures, and nobody has to die from smallpox anymore. Famines caused by crop diseases are rare nowadays.

Love, like fear or hope, is an abstract concept and also a term that refers to an emotion caused by chemical reaction in people's minds. Truth is also an abstract concept that exists in people's minds. Therefore no truth, love, fear, hope, etc. are found where there are no living beings to experience them.

I would say that things that exist outside of human minds are real. Things that are abstract concepts in people's minds are not real in the same way, as having an independent existence. Abstract concepts can be very important, even worth dying for, but they still come from inside of people's minds.

Of course I would put belief in gods in the abstract, imaginary category, of things that exist only in people's minds. People can still act as though gods are real, just like people used to think witches and demons made them sick with smallpox even though there were not any witches or demons.

Over to you, Lukvance.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

I proved here that God exist (at least as an abstract idea) And in the other thread I explained/proved why he existed as more than that.

Lukvance:

The above post is perfect example of your complete failure to understand what the original point was. It also shows unbearable hubris.

Further, it is also the perfect example of why your posts have wasted everyone's time and cause record numbers of reported posts.

"I proved here that God exist (at least as an abstract idea)" We were all agreed that all gods (including yours) are a mental concept from the start. You have proven nothing. It is like saying "I have proven New York exists as a city". You have not advanced human knowledge at all.

"And in the other thread I explained/proved why he existed as more than that." The explained/proved is incorrect. First you proved nothing at all. Secondly, your explanation, all agreed, was absolute garbage, littered with errors and baseless assumptions.

You come across as if you thought yourself some great luminary whose faith causes everything to be true.

You must distinguish between what is true and what you would like to be true and what you see as true because it supports your faith.

Failure to do this will result in your posts having to be approved before they are generally visible.

Please, Luk, no more wild statements, no more claims to have shown anything new, no more "Love exists so god exists" arguments.

We do not wish to limit your freedom to post, we wish to help you by limiting the time you need to spend on futile claims.

GB Mod

« Last Edit: August 14, 2014, 08:46:54 AM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

If love and truth are not living beings, but if they exist, then god exists, then god is not a living being either. If god is a being, than god is not on the same plane of existence as love and truth. Love and truth are abstract concepts that don't exist apart from living beings who define and experience those concepts. So is god an abstract concept like love and truth? If so, then where there are no living beings, there will be no god. Lukvance are love and truth living beings or not? Is god a living being or not?

Love and truth are not living beings.Let me ask you some questions about humans.Are they real?Are humans on the same plane of existence as love and truth? Can humans experience things that are not real? Is love and truth part of these things? And God?Do you have objective measures of their existence, demonstrable to anyone?Aren't the belief in humans totally a matter of personal opinion?Is there a difference between the existence of humans and the existence of love? Is there one that exist more than the other?Can things exist more that other things?

Thanks for stating clearly that love and truth are not living beings.

Yes, human beings are real. That is what a being is, something that is alive and real.

Yes, humans can experience things that are not real. We humans are very good at imagining things that are not real, and acting as though they are real. Children have imaginary friends who are not real. People have scary nightmares that make us shake and sweat and scream, even though they are not real. Illness and drugs can cause hallucinations that seem very real, but are not. Schizophrenics hear voices that are not real, and the voices go away when they take the right medications.

Every culture had imaginary beings like witches or demons that caused smallpox or caused crops to fail-- witches and demons are not real. People took precautions against them as if they were real beings, but it did no good. Smallpox still sickened everyone and the crops still died in the ground causing starvation. Now we know that germs and viruses cause sickness and crop failures, and nobody has to die from smallpox anymore. Famines caused by crop diseases are rare nowadays.

Love, like fear or hope, is an abstract concept and also a term that refers to an emotion caused by chemical reaction in people's minds. Truth is also an abstract concept that exists in people's minds. Therefore no truth, love, fear, hope, etc. are found where there are no living beings to experience them.

I would say that things that exist outside of human minds are real. Things that are abstract concepts in people's minds are not real in the same way, as having an independent existence. Abstract concepts can be very important, even worth dying for, but they still come from inside of people's minds.

Of course I would put belief in gods in the abstract, imaginary category, of things that exist only in people's minds. People can still act as though gods are real, just like people used to think witches and demons made them sick with smallpox even though there were not any witches or demons.

Over to you, Lukvance.

Here are some questions that I asked you and couldn't find answer to in your reply :Do you have objective measures of humans existence, demonstrable to anyone?Aren't the belief in humans totally a matter of personal opinion?Is there a difference between the existence of humans and the existence of love? Is there one that exist more than the other?Can things exist more that other things?

^^^I seriously do not know what you mean by these questions. "Is the existence of human beings a matter of opinion?"

What does that even mean? Who is asking and who is answering if not a human being? Are we going solipsistic again? Like, we can't know anything is real, therefore god is real? I am not interested if we are going there.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Do you have objective measures of humans existence, demonstrable to anyone?Aren't the belief in humans totally a matter of personal opinion?Is there a difference between the existence of humans and the existence of love? Is there one that exist more than the other?Can things exist more that other things?

yes, there are objective measures of humans existence, demonstrable to everyone.Do you believe that I exist. What proof do you have?No, the belief in humans is not totally a matter of personal opinion. See above.

I don't really understand the question "Is there one that exist more than the other?"

The belief in the existence of some things can be more reasonable than a belief in other things. Take the belief in the existence of humans in contrast to the belief in flying spaghetti monsters for example.

This doesn't help matters any. I was going to +Darwin you to counter his smite,

Thanks, but completely unnecessary.

Quote

but I won't do so

Oh, ok. Good. I'm glad you stick by your principles.

Quote

when your post is so completely unhelpful.

As opposed to all those helpful posts that have been doing what exactly? Helping? Helping what? Raising frustration levels throughout the community is all I see.

Quote

Even if he was an idiot,

If? After nearly 2000 posts, dude leads the league in smites, and warrants more.

Quote

just what good do you think it would do to call him that in public?

Make me feel better about getting it off my chest, and calling a spade a spade. And hey, it's all about me, dontcha know.

If you, or anyone else wants to continue to engage him and his dodging, his non-answers, his answering questions with questions, , his lack of substance, his lack of comprehension, his illogical mindset, and his dumb ass equivocations, be my guest. It doesn't seem to be making him any less of an idiot.

In the context we were talking about love. Does love exist less than humans?

Lukvance,

Do fairies exist less than gods?

First of all your English has failed you, You mean to say, "Is love any less real than a human being?"

And once you tell us what you mean by "real" we can continue to be driven mad by your near-insane obsession.

__________________________________________________________

You never got over losing the debate on God's existence, did you? You are trying to recover from the loss but you have become obsessional about the idea of your god being something like the quality that love possesses.

Read some of the replies and you will see that all posters have tried to explain where you have gone wrong and I note that nobody agrees with you.

Leave this argument alone and find a new one. This one is not going to run.

GB Mod

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

^Thanks for asking this. Luk agreed with me that God is an abstract idea that is stimulated in our brain by chemical reactions, but he hasn't explained how he makes the leap from God is an abstract idea to God has a direct influence on our world with miracles, which he has claimed in other threads.

That is not true. I proved here that God exist (at least as an abstract idea) And in the other thread I explained/proved why he existed as more than that.

NOPE. You didn't prove that at all. I proved you wrong be showing that your definition of the term "God" is meaningless and has no coherent content that refers to any specific "thing". EAT IT.